I was quoting a quote so

I actually enjoyed seeing polls on BSN at a 90% for a whole different ending and then their PR saying we are listening by ADDING to the bad ending.  No one really wants the illogical deus ex ending.  Didn't help either that the Bioware booth  at Pax East said they won't talk about the endings either.  We have never seen such separation between consumer and developer/publisher up until this point.  It will only get worse if the non-used systems actually happens.  I as a paying customer can't help but feel I am getting the short end of the stick on this.

At least EA will still have the people who buy Madden every year.

Capcom and Legends 3. Except the MegaMan community is barely even a community anymore and I guess we learned pretty fast that Capcom's fighting game cash-miltanks will keep them afloat forever. All things considered, the recoil from the cancellation DID put a lot of Capcom's workers on our side, so yeah, EA is pretty much at the pinnacle of backlash right now.

Remember that game with the awful ending everyone buys every year??? Some ****ing pope gets magical powers out of nowhere?

OH YEAH IT'S ASSASSIN'S CREED. Everyone buys those despite the awful ends. Same with Metal Gear Solid.

People will buy Mass Effect 4 with similar fervor.

Correct me on this, but the overarching story of the AC series doesn't seem as integral to the sales as it did for ME3. I mean, I just buy the games so I can kill people invisibly in as many new cool ways as possible. The story is just an excuse. Maybe I'm a bad fan though.

That's true, but since the majority of the game is the single player mode, it's worth mentioning.

Mass Effect is really fun and a new ending for 3 is coming soon.

I'm just not sure why people hate a company that has not affected them at all. I guess the company itself is somewhat of a cannibal, but they put out good games.

Wrong.

They said they are clarifying the endings or in other words adding onto the already bad endings.

What games of theirs is good again?

Assuming you're not pulling the "hahaha wrong EA is a publisher they don't make games hahahaha idiot!!!" argument used earlier,

Every Battlefield game ever
Every SSX game ever
Mass Effect 2, 3
Spore
NFL Blitz
MVP Baseball series
Tiger Wood's...
NHL series (these games are of very legitimate quality)
Shaq Fu
Katamari...
Boom Blox
Bulletstorm
Dead Space

And those are off the top of my head. All released in the past few years except MVP Baseball, an honorable mention, and

How many of those games gets raped by DLC costs or online passes?

Well, Battlefield has free DLC for everyone who has an online pass. Online passes are free with every new copy (still being sold 6 months later) or $10 for a used copy, so you're still spending $10 for two years of content in Bad Company 2's case.

None of the other games besides Mass Effect, which has completely optional paid DLC, have much DLC and have few online passes.

People who hate online passes are supremely stupid and ignorant to the fact that developers don't get paid from used games sales. If you're not supporting the developers, you shouldn't get their extra work for free. Period.

Also DLC is optional.

always

Not to mention Activision, Microsoft, and even Sony with MediaMolecule and Gran Turismo's developer have HIGHER DLC prices than EA.

For instance, recent DLC for Gran Turismo reached $20. DLC for Little Big Planet is VERY, VERY expensive (which is disappointing for me as a big fan). Every Call of Duty has map packs that reach $15 in price for very little value.

Battlefield, which I know I keep using as an example, recently put out an expansion with four maps, 15 new weapons, increased destruction and insane visuals for a whopping $0.

Upcoming expansions are priced at $15 for similar content. Which is a lot of bang for your buck.

In short, nearly every current gen developer has a similar DLC plan. Not just EA devs.

All of the games you listed really aren't that good.

Battlefield - more of the same first person shooter garbage that has been flooding the industry for too long
SSX - Isn't that the snowboarding game? We're gonna group that in with sports games, which are never fun.
Mass Effect - an overly dramatic choose your own adventure book with a bland decision making process that changes the gameplay less than getting Mission Accomplished/Mission Complete in Star Fox 64. Except Star Fox 64 was fun and I could shoot down slippy and still be considered the hero that I am.
Spore - A game that was hyped for like 5 years and then turned out to be not all that great.
NFL Blitz - Sports game. Not fun. Not good.
MVP Sportsball - Sports.
Tiger Sports - Sports.
NHL - Sports
Shaq-Fu - ... haha.
Katamari - This is a good game. If that wasn't proof enough that it doesn't belong on a list of games published by EA, Katamari is developed and produced by Namco/Namco Bandai, and we all know their only sin is not localizing more Tales games.
Boom Blox - Casual funtime party game that isn't even really that fun (yeah I've actually played it).
Bulletstorm - SO EDGY WE SAY **** EVERY OTHER LINE HYUCK HYUCK IT WORKED FOR DUKE NUKEM IT'LL WORK FOR US RIGHT?
Dead Space - Never played it, people seem to like it, so it might actually be one of the few good games EA produced. Or it could just be overrated garbage, since there's at least one person who would claim all of the EA published games on this list are good.

Also, let me just say that it sounds like you're defending DLC, especially by calling it "extra work". The majority of DLC in the industry right now is extra costumes, extra maps, and extra guns. Extra costumes includes new characters for multiplayer. These kinds of things should be free, because nowhere along the line do they qualify as having work put into them. Looking at every Valve game I own, maps are free. The bonus ending to Portal 1 was free. The bonus test chambers in Portal 2 were free. Left 4 Dead got a completely new campaign, so did Left 4 Dead 2, as well as them importing all of the campaigns from Left 4 Dead 1 and allowing you to play as the characters in it, all of them except Bill having new voice lines for new special infected and items. Granted, all of this is for the PC versions, since Microsoft is too greedy to let someone have free things on their marketplace, but still, this is the way that DLC should be done when it's something small like that.

I can agree with DLC if it adds something. Let's say that in Smash 4, they ask 5 bucks for a new set of characters. If this set of characters is greater than 10 non-clone characters, I'd say it's worth it, especially as long as these characters aren't already on the disc. But so help me if they throw in one clone into that set and say it's a new character, I will be as pissed at Nintendo's DLC as I am at anyone else'. I already don't know how to feel about them implementing it AT ALL, much less their first DLC being a day one character download, but it is going to be free for the first month of release, so it seems like to me they're just showing off how it works rather than trying to suck up money from people. In all honesty, Nintendo's the only company doing it right still. They have a customer rewards program for people who do buy their games new, and never have tried to stop people from buying the games used. It's because of that that I buy all of Nintendo's games new, and most of the time on day one. I know they'll be good, and to top it off, they don't pull **** moves around every corner. The rest of the industry could learn from this, but they prefer to fatten their pockets with rehashes and DLC.

Oh and did I mention that it's completely legit to hate online passes? If you buy a game, you should be entitled to play its multiplayer. If you bought a game used, yeah, the company doesn't get the money from that sale, but they got the money from the sales of all the people who bought it before it was available used. That's a lot of people, you know. In fact, considering that it would probably take about a week for a new game to end up used, the company isn't really losing THAT much profit from used game sales. Consider the following: How much are companies losing to piracy and used game sales compared to how much they spend on fighting piracy and used game sales? If they would just cut that crap out, their sales would go up because their business-customer relationship wouldn't be comparable to warden-prisoner relationships, and they wouldn't be wasting money on stopping something that you cannot stop. Even if every used game store in the country was run out of buiness, and even if the anti-piracy nuke was dropped on the internet and people were arrested and executed for even mentioning piracy, they still can't stop two real life friends from just letting each other borrow their games, or in the most extreme case, coming over to each other's houses to play an entire game on the other one's system.

Have you actually played battlefield.

I've seen it played. I personally don't play things that I regard as killing the industry because I have a bit more resolve than most gamers.

Let me get that super paper mario picture be right back.

There we go, sorry for taking so long.


Such a beauty, isn't it.

How is Battlefield killing the industry?

I can tell why people are complaining about CoD where a 'new' game is being released every year, but Battlefield?

If it's a good series or not is a completely different thing, but I really do think Battlefield has its own niche in the genre, focusing on open maps and whatnot.

Battlefield is fantastic fun.
Battlefield 1942 (1): 2002
Battlefield 2: 2005
Battlefield 3: 2011.

There have been two spinoffs, both of which were great fun and very different from the core series.

And a few ports.

Wow, sounds a lot like Call of Duty! Especially since it's released every year... oh wait.

Did you just call SSX a sports game? Come on, man, try.

Did you just call NFL Blitz a sports game? God damn... it has fake rules, it's ridiculous , it's fun. It's as much a sports game as a game like InFamous.

Also, EA published Mirror's Edge.

MIRROR'S EDGE.

Although I'll agree Bulletstorm is an unappealing game, it wasn't unfun and a lot of people liked it.

This is my favorite sport.

Might be a moot point, but people here are forgetting that even though BoA won the Poo Awards from the Consumerist a few times back, it did little, if anything at all, to change how they operated as a business. They were the same terrible bank before the Poo, and they were the same terrible bank afterward.

Granted, BoA probably still deserve the Poo Award this round, moreso than E.A., but I think that at the very least, E.A. getting the Poo Award would shine some light on the problems that the gaming industry has, as exemplified in some cases by E.A.

At the very least, it brings in some Popcorn-worthy entertainment as the industry tries to spin this one way or another.